kill one to save many?

Time needed / 30 minutes
Age range / Any teen
Background of teen / Any background
Set up / Groups of seats

Goals:To consider ethical dilemmas and what the Torah view is compared with our own moral compasses.

Relevance:Discussion about objective morality.

Supplies needed:copies of the dilemmas for comparison and facilitation questions.

Active Learning:

This club basically runs itself: There are 2 dilemmas, give half the group one case and the other half the other. You can split the groups into more manageable sizes and give half the groups one dilemma and the other half the other.

Give the teens 10 minutes to read the dilemmas and discuss the questions.

If you have more than one group talking about the same dilemma you could match those groups up to compare their thoughts.

Ask groups to feedback and present what their dilemma was and what they would have done.

Almost invariably you would have a lot more saying kill one to save the 5 in the trolley case. You should challenge them to explain how and why the two cases are different

Step by step planning:

Time / Facilitator Activity / Teen activity
10 minutes / Give out the 2 dilemmas for groups / Read and discuss the questions
5 minutes / Match up the groups / Compare your group’s thoughts to the other group’s thoughts
10 minutes / Ask questions- / Brief presentation of each dilemma and answering questions
5 minutes / Wrap up and Torah thoughts

Facilitation Questions:

  1. What is the difference between the 2 cases?
  2. How do we make ethical decisions?
  3. What resources did you used to make your decisions?
  4. Is there a right and wrong answer?

Wrap up message and Torah thought:

Babylonian Talmud Pesachim 25 a-b / תלמוד בבלי מס' פסחים דף כה עמ' א-ב
When Rabin came, he said in R. Johanan’s name: We may cure [i.e. save] ourselves with all [forbidden] things, except idolatry, incest, and murder...
And how do we know it of murder itself? It is common sense. Even as one who came before Raba and said to him: The governor of my town has ordered me, ‘Go and kill So-and-so; if not, I will kill you.’ He answered him: Let him kill you rather than that you should commit murder; what [reason] do you see [for thinking] that your blood is redder? Perhaps his blood is redder.’ / כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן: בכל מתרפאין, חוץ מעבודה זרה וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים......
ושפיכות דמים גופיה מנלן? - סברא הוא; כי ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבא, אמר ליה: מרי דוראי אמר לי זיל קטליה לפלניא, ואי לא - קטלינא לך. - אמר ליה: ליקטלוך ולא תיקטול. מאי חזית דדמא דידך סומק טפי? דילמא דמא דההוא גברא סומק טפי?

Babylonian Talmud Baba Metzia 62a / תלמודבבלימסכתבבאמציעאדףסבעמודא
Now how does R. Johanan interpret, ‘that thy brother may live with thee?’ He utilizes it for that which was taught: If two are travelling on a journey [far from civilization], and one has a pitcher of water, if both drink, they will [both] die, but if one only drinks, he can reach civilization. Ben Petura taught: It is better that both should drink and die, rather than that one should behold his companion’s death. Until R. Akiba came and taught: ‘that thy brother may live with thee:’ thy life takes precedence over his life. / לכדתניא: שניםשהיומהלכיןבדרך, ובידאחדמהןקיתוןשלמים, אםשותיןשניהם- מתים, ואםשותהאחדמהן- מגיעלישוב. דרשבןפטורא: מוטבשישתושניהםוימותו, ואליראהאחדמהםבמיתתושלחבירו. עדשבארביעקיבאולימד: וחיאחיךעמך- חייךקודמיםלחייחבירך

Additional Resources:

Trolley car dilemma

the problem

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

(1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.

(2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the correct choice?

questions to consider

  1. What is your immediate response?
  2. Would you pull the lever or do nothing?
  3. Why?
  4. Which choice is more moral?
  5. What is your definitions of moral?
  6. Did you use feelings or rationale to make your choice?
  7. Did anyone in the group disagree?

the organ donation problem

the problem

David is a great transplant surgeon. Five of his patients need new parts. One needs a heart, the others need, respectively, liver, stomach, spleen, and spinal cord. But all are of the same, relatively rare, blood-type. By chance, David learns of a healthy specimen with that very blood-type. David can take the healthy specimen’s parts, killing him, and install them in his patients, saving them. Or he can refrain from taking the healthy specimen’s parts, letting his patients die.

questions to consider

  1. Should the doctor perform the transplant?
  2. Why?
  3. What makes your decision moral or immoral?
  4. What is your definitions of moral?
  5. Did you use feelings or rationale to make your choice?
  6. Did anyone in the group disagree? What was their argument?